What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5402269?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of The Second Piece Of…: $408.85 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402269?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13790348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5402269?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of The Second Piece Of…: $408.85 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402269?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13790348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402269 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402269 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402269 — net $436.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of the second piece of glass	$408.85	Reimbursement of the second piece of glass
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$436.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$436.85

Claims and awards for application 5402269 — net $436.85 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Reimbursement of the second piece of glass

Amount: $408.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement of the second piece of glass

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $436.85

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $436.85

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details. Kaku Waikato Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $436.85 immediately, as set out in the table.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Li represented Kaku Waikato Limited.
There is a previous order in this matter which explains why I have jurisdiction. I find the company is the tenant in the original tenancy agreement and landlord for the tenants in a sub tenancy. The sub tenancy was recorded in the flat sharing agreement.
The tenant has claimed the cost of a replacement e-scooter because her scooter was stolen during the tenancy. The tenant said the garage door was not operating properly and it would open by itself. The tenant said she advised Ms Li and the property manager acting for the owner at the time. No repairs were made until after the scooter was stolen. Ms Li said she did not know about the problems with the door.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out an obligation for landlords and tenants to mitigate any loss. In this case mitigation would mean the tenant should have parked her scooter somewhere more secure until the door repair was carried out. I am not persuaded the landlord should pay compensation and this claim is dismissed.
During the tenancy the tenants agreed to pay for one pane of broken glass to be repaired. When the invoice came the tenants were billed to replace two panes so the glass would match. They paid, but the tenants now question whether that was fair. Ms Li said she could see the owner’s logic in wanting matching glass.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA set out that tenants are responsible for damage that is careless or intentional. This means the tenants only have to pay for the broken pane which was damaged during the tenancy, either carelessly or intentionally. The owner should not have charged the tenants to match the glass. The amount paid for the second pane is to be reimbursed by Kaku Waikato Limited. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay money to tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402269 — net $436.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of the second piece of glass	$408.85	Reimbursement of the second piece of glass
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$436.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$436.85

Claims and awards for application 5402269 — net $436.85 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Reimbursement of the second piece of glass

Amount: $408.85
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement of the second piece of glass

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $436.85

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $436.85

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details. Kaku Waikato Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $436.85 immediately, as set out in the table.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Li represented Kaku Waikato Limited.
There is a previous order in this matter which explains why I have jurisdiction. I find the company is the tenant in the original tenancy agreement and landlord for the tenants in a sub tenancy. The sub tenancy was recorded in the flat sharing agreement.
The tenant has claimed the cost of a replacement e-scooter because her scooter was stolen during the tenancy. The tenant said the garage door was not operating properly and it would open by itself. The tenant said she advised Ms Li and the property manager acting for the owner at the time. No repairs were made until after the scooter was stolen. Ms Li said she did not know about the problems with the door.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out an obligation for landlords and tenants to mitigate any loss. In this case mitigation would mean the tenant should have parked her scooter somewhere more secure until the door repair was carried out. I am not persuaded the landlord should pay compensation and this claim is dismissed.
During the tenancy the tenants agreed to pay for one pane of broken glass to be repaired. When the invoice came the tenants were billed to replace two panes so the glass would match. They paid, but the tenants now question whether that was fair. Ms Li said she could see the owner’s logic in wanting matching glass.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA set out that tenants are responsible for damage that is careless or intentional. This means the tenants only have to pay for the broken pane which was damaged during the tenancy, either carelessly or intentionally. The owner should not have charged the tenants to match the glass. The amount paid for the second pane is to be reimbursed by Kaku Waikato Limited. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay money to tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402269 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402269 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions